#trump-impeachment — Public Fediverse posts

https://www.europesays.com/unitedstates/48920/ Sen. Markey goes ‘On the Record’ #AbolishIce #BostonInternship #BostonPolitics #ChuckSchumer #DepartmentOfHomelandSecurity #DHS #EdMarkey #ice #MarkeyPost #MaryAnneMarsh #MassachusettsPolitics #MassachusettsSenateRace #MauraHealey #OnTheRecord #PoliticalCampaigns #PoliticalParties #PublicRecords #Question1 #Question3 #Question5 #Question8 #RahmEmanuel #RobGray #SenateDemocrats #TrumpImpeachment #WCVB

CW: Occasional Foul Language. Always Political.

Breaking: @50501-socal.bsky.social Organizer Nick Miller demands an end to the war machine, a Free Palestine, and the impeachment, conviction & removal of Trump administration officials!

Link: https://bsky.app/profile/50501movement.bsky.social/post/3my3zi3coy22w

----------------------------

Reposted from 50501: The People's Movement

Join the Movement at https://fiftyfifty.one

This robot is unaffiliated w/ 50501

Replies here are only seen in the Fediverse, not on Bluesky. 50501 volunteers do not monitor this account.

----------------------------

#Coup #Activism #FederalGovernment #USpol #Trump #NoKings #elections #50501Movement #WeAreTheResistance #WeHaveFriendsEverywhere #FDT #PeoplesMovement #FiftyFiftyOne #StopICE #protest #organize

#FreePalestine #EndWarMachine #NoMoreWar #TrumpImpeachment #RemoveTrumpOfficials #PoliticalActivism #PeaceNow # PalestineSupport #SocialJustice #PoliticalNews

Air Force Major Who Called for Trump’s Impeachment Is in Solitary Confinement 24 Hours a Day

https://www.commondreams.org/news/jason-watson-solitary-confinement

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/85583

Air Force Maj. Jason Watson was arrested July 1 on the steps of the US Capitol after calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. According to his lawyer, he's now being held in solitary confinement 24 hours a day in what some legal experts say could amount to illegal pretrial punishment.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) contains provisions barring officers from engaging in public political activities that are typically protected for civilians, including criticizing the president and other elected officials.

Prosecutors have charged Watson with violating them when he participated in a news conference calling for Trump to be removed from office over his launching of military actions against Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela without congressional authorization.

After the speech, Watson stood on the Capitol steps holding a sign that read “Impeach, Convict, Remove" and was arrested after he refused to move.

Before he was charged, Watson gave a CNN interview on August 17 in which he continued to criticize Trump, accusing him of "flagrantly violating the Constitution" and "breaking the law."

He acknowledged that he could face severe consequences as a result of his speech: "We just have to be willing to accept that we can change what is happening in our country if we are just willing to pay a price for it," he said.

One day later, he was arrested while on duty and taken into pretrial confinement. He now faces a general court-martial, the military's most severe trial, which is capable of imposing lengthy prison sentences.

On Friday, Watson's lawyer, Christopher Mutimer, told CNN that after nearly two months, Watson is "still in solitary confinement 24 hours a day," which he said amounted to "cruel and unusual" punishment.

"Even if he gets an hour to eat or to exercise, he is alone," Mutimer said. "He is literally by himself, with his thoughts, in a room where the light never turns off all day."

In an essay published Sunday by writer Monte Mader, Watson himself acknowledged spending his days in isolation, revealing that his Bible had only recently been returned to him and that he had little access to news.

Watson described the conditions of his confinement as the reality one must accept when choosing to engage in nonviolent resistance.

“Walking this path," he said, "means exposing oneself to violence while refusing to retaliate against it.”

After his July 1 protest, Watson had been restricted to Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington. Though the base reportedly has a confinement facility, following his detention, he was instead moved to a county jail in Maryland.

During Watson's September 18 preliminary hearing, Maj. Joshua Wendell, the hearing officer, said Watson could not be confined with civilians and was therefore kept in solitary confinement.

"He was placed in confinement because of the law, which puts him in solitary confinement," Wendell said, according to Stars and Stripes.

Article 13 of the UCMJ "forbids punishing a service member before trial and forbids pretrial restraint more rigorous than the circumstances require."

Mutimer has pointed out that solitary confinement is "usually reserved for individuals who are disobeying or are violent, and injuring other people," and usually only for "a day or two, or a week." Watson, he said, has "been in there for months now."

Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force judge advocate and professor of law at Southwestern Law School, told Common Dreams that this "seems to be a blatant case of illegal pretrial punishment given that the nature of his pretrial restraint does not seem necessary to either ensure his presence at trial or to prevent foreseeable serious criminal misconduct."

“Solitary confinement is rare, and must be justified,” she said. “What, is the administration so afraid of this major’s words that he cannot talk to anyone?”

Military defense attorney Cody Harnish, who attended Watson's preliminary hearing, has raised concerns that his detention could be unlawful and that his especially harsh treatment was political in nature.

"I represent people at court-martial in the military, who are accused of doing some very bad things," he said during an interview this weekend with Meidas Defense. "They are not in pretrial confinement."

Harnish noted other abnormal aspects of Watson’s preliminary hearing: He was denied the ability to wear his uniform and instead arrived handcuffed, unshaven, and wearing an undershirt, which pointed to the possibility that he was facing degrading treatment.

He also pointed out that Watson had submitted a request to resign his commission in exchange for avoiding a court-martial, but that the request was denied in 24 hours.

"Nothing gets processed in the military that fast," he said, suggesting that this could indicate influence from senior Pentagon officials.

During his second term, Trump has used members of the military for political purposes in ways that have challenged longstanding norms of political neutrality. This has included hosting overtly political rallies before uniformed troops, screening them for ideology, and purging senior military officers deemed disloyal.

Harnish suggested that the Trump administration was seeking to make an example out of Watson for speaking out against the president.

"When someone speaks out against this administration in the military," he said, "they're going to crush him to silence anyone else in the ranks from ever thinking about it."

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

https://www.europesays.com/unitedstates/11346/ Trump wants record-breaking military funding, domestic budget cuts #25thAmendment #ArticlesOfImpeachment #Congress #HouseAndSenate #ICEFunding #ImmigrantDetentionFacilities #IranWar #MilitaryBudget #NationalDefense #NationalSecurity #Senate #TrumpImpeachment #USCongress #USSenate

The Presidency and the Power to Make War: When One Person Decides

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 29, 2026

The Constitution does not give the president of the United States an unrestricted power to take the nation to war.

It gives Congress the power to declare war.

It gives Congress authority to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, regulate the armed forces, and appropriate the money necessary to sustain military operations (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8).

The president, meanwhile, is commander in chief of the armed forces (U.S. Const. art. II, § 2).

For more than two centuries, presidents and Congresses have argued about where one authority ends and the other begins.

Donald Trump’s second presidency has brought that argument back with extraordinary force.

In June 2025, Trump ordered U.S. military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities without first obtaining specific authorization from Congress. The administration defended the operation as a lawful exercise of presidential authority. Critics in Congress argued that Trump had usurped a power constitutionally reserved to the legislature (The White House, 2025a; Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2025a).

The disagreement became so serious that Representative Al Green introduced an article of impeachment specifically accusing Trump of violating Congress’s constitutional war power (U.S. House of Representatives, 2025a).

That does not establish that Trump committed an impeachable offense.

But unlike some theoretical arguments surrounding a possible third impeachment, this one already exists in black and white.

A member of Congress has formally alleged that Trump’s use of military force constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor.

The question is whether the constitutional argument holds.

The Constitution Divided the War Powers Deliberately

The Framers had experience with kings.

They understood the danger of allowing a single executive to decide when a nation would enter war.

The Constitution therefore divided military authority.

Congress received the power to declare war and control military funding. The president became commander in chief, providing the executive leadership necessary to direct military operations (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; art. II, § 2).

James Madison considered this division essential. He argued that the Constitution had deliberately transferred the power to initiate war away from the executive because executives historically were particularly inclined toward war (Madison, 1793/1906).

Alexander Hamilton—often associated with a strong executive—also distinguished the American president’s military authority from that of the British king. In Federalist No. 69, Hamilton emphasized that the president’s commander-in-chief authority was narrower than the British monarch’s authority to declare war and raise armies (Hamilton, 1788/1961).

The basic design was therefore intentional.

The president commands forces.

Congress decides whether the nation will legally commit itself to war.

At least, that was the theory.

Two Centuries Changed the Practice

American history complicated the constitutional arrangement almost immediately.

Presidents have repeatedly deployed military force without formal declarations of war.

Korea.

Vietnam.

Grenada.

Panama.

Kosovo.

Libya.

Operations in Iraq and Syria.

Numerous smaller interventions, strikes, raids, deployments, and covert operations.

Congress has sometimes authorized force without formally declaring war. At other times presidents have relied upon their Article II authority as commander in chief and chief executive.

The result is a constitutional gray area considerably larger than the text of Article I might initially suggest.

Modern presidents of both parties have asserted authority to conduct limited military operations without advance congressional authorization when they conclude that important national interests are involved and when the anticipated scope, nature, and duration of hostilities do not rise to the constitutional meaning of “war” requiring congressional authorization (CRS, 2025a).

Trump did not invent that theory.

Democratic and Republican administrations have used versions of it for decades.

That fact matters when evaluating whether his actions are impeachable.

Congress Tried to Reassert Itself After Vietnam

The Vietnam War produced an enormous backlash against unilateral presidential warfare.

Congress responded by enacting the War Powers Resolution of 1973 over President Richard Nixon’s veto.

The law requires consultation with Congress “in every possible instance” before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated. It also establishes reporting requirements and generally requires termination of unauthorized military involvement after a statutory period unless Congress authorizes continued operations (War Powers Resolution, 1973).

Presidents from both parties have questioned aspects of the resolution’s constitutionality.

Nevertheless, administrations generally submit reports consistent with it while carefully avoiding language that would concede Congress’s interpretation of presidential war powers (CRS, 2025b).

That uneasy compromise has survived for more than half a century.

But it has never resolved the underlying question:

How much war can a president wage before Congress must say yes?

Then Trump Bombed Iran

On June 21, 2025, Trump announced that U.S. forces had struck three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.

The operation involved American military aircraft and munitions directed against facilities inside the sovereign territory of Iran.

The White House described the strikes as necessary to eliminate or severely degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities and protect American national-security interests (The White House, 2025a).

Trump presented the operation as a spectacular military success.

Supporters argued that the president acted decisively against a serious threat and that limited strikes fell within presidential Article II authority.

Critics responded with a much simpler constitutional objection:

Congress had not authorized a war against Iran.

The Administration’s Legal Argument

The Trump administration subsequently provided Congress with its legal justification.

According to the administration, the president possessed constitutional authority to order the strikes because he determined that they served important national interests and because the anticipated nature, scope, and duration of the operation did not amount to “war” in the constitutional sense requiring prior congressional authorization (The White House, 2025b; CRS, 2025a).

That reasoning did not emerge from nowhere.

Previous administrations have used similar legal frameworks.

President Barack Obama’s administration relied upon comparable reasoning during the 2011 intervention in Libya, arguing that the limited character of the operation did not require prior congressional authorization under the Constitution.

Presidents have also ordered isolated missile strikes, retaliatory operations, rescue missions, counterterrorism raids, and other military actions without obtaining a declaration of war.

Trump therefore has a serious constitutional defense:

The presidency has accumulated substantial historical authority to conduct limited military operations without Congress first passing an authorization.

If impeachment is going to be considered, that defense cannot simply be ignored.

But Bombing Another Country Is Not a Minor Administrative Act

The opposing argument is equally serious.

American military forces attacked targets inside Iran.

Iran is a sovereign state.

Those targets were central to one of the most dangerous geopolitical disputes in the world.

A strike against Iranian nuclear facilities carried obvious risks of retaliation against American troops, American allies, shipping, energy infrastructure, and potentially the United States itself.

The operation therefore could have initiated a substantially larger war regardless of whether Trump intended one.

That is exactly why the Constitution placed war-making authority partly in Congress.

The Framers did not merely fear presidents deliberately launching enormous wars.

They feared executive decisions that could drag the country into war.

Once bombs fall, the other country gets a vote.

The president controls the American decision to strike.

He does not control Iran’s response.

Congress Had Not Authorized War With Iran

Congress had previously enacted Authorizations for Use of Military Force connected to the September 11 attacks and the Iraq War.

Neither constituted a general authorization to wage war against Iran.

The administration primarily defended the June 2025 strikes through Article II presidential authority rather than claiming Congress had already authorized an Iranian war (CRS, 2025a).

That fact makes the constitutional dispute unusually clean.

The question is not principally whether an old congressional authorization can be stretched to cover a new enemy.

The question is whether the president himself possessed sufficient constitutional authority to order the operation.

Trump said yes.

Some members of Congress said no.

Congress Responded With War Powers Measures

Members of Congress introduced measures intended to require congressional authorization for continued or additional hostilities involving Iran.

Senator Tim Kaine introduced S.J.Res. 59 directing the removal of U.S. armed forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress specifically authorized those hostilities (U.S. Senate, 2025).

In the House, Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican, joined Democratic Representative Ro Khanna in introducing a corresponding war-powers resolution asserting that Congress—not the president alone—possesses the constitutional authority to decide whether the United States enters war with Iran (U.S. House of Representatives, 2025b).

That bipartisan opposition is significant.

The dispute was not simply Democrats objecting because Trump is a Republican.

Some Republicans also argued that Congress had been bypassed.

Then Came an Article of Impeachment

Representative Al Green went further.

On June 24, 2025, Green introduced H.Res. 537, accusing Trump of committing a high crime and misdemeanor by abusing presidential power and usurping Congress’s constitutional authority to declare war when he ordered military strikes against Iran without congressional authorization (U.S. House of Representatives, 2025a).

The House did not embrace Green’s argument.

On June 24, it voted 344–79 to table the impeachment resolution, with 128 Democrats joining Republicans in effectively stopping immediate consideration (U.S. House of Representatives, 2025c).

That vote matters.

Congress was plainly nowhere near a consensus that the Iran strikes justified impeachment.

Any honest account has to say so.

But tabling an impeachment resolution is a political judgment.

It is not a Supreme Court ruling establishing that the president possessed unlimited constitutional authority.

The underlying separation-of-powers question remains.

A Bad Policy Decision Is Not Necessarily Impeachable

This series has repeatedly returned to the same limitation because it matters.

Congress should not impeach presidents simply because legislators disagree with presidential policy.

A military operation can be foolish without being impeachable.

It can fail without being impeachable.

It can be strategically reckless without necessarily constituting a high crime or misdemeanor.

Presidents must possess operational flexibility.

If American forces are attacked, nobody seriously expects the president to wait for a week-long congressional debate before defending them.

If intelligence reveals an imminent attack, the commander in chief must possess some capacity to act.

The Constitution cannot require paralysis.

The difficult case is different.

It is a deliberate military operation against another sovereign country, undertaken without an immediate attack requiring instantaneous defense, where Congress has not authorized hostilities.

At that point, the constitutional allocation of war powers becomes unavoidable.

The Problem Is Larger Than Trump

Trump’s critics should recognize something uncomfortable.

Presidents did not acquire expansive unilateral war-making authority in January 2017 or January 2025.

Congress helped create this situation.

For decades, legislators from both parties have tolerated presidential military actions without declarations of war.

Sometimes Congress has provided broad authorizations and then allowed presidents to interpret them expansively.

Sometimes it has funded military operations after they began.

Sometimes it has complained without taking decisive legislative action.

Sometimes lawmakers have preferred letting presidents make dangerous decisions because doing so allows Congress to avoid political responsibility.

That history weakens any simplistic claim that Trump’s Iran strike suddenly invented an unconstitutional presidency.

But it strengthens another argument.

Eventually a constitutional boundary that is never enforced ceases to function as a meaningful boundary.

What Would Make This Impeachable?

The strongest impeachment argument would not be:

Donald Trump bombed Iran, and bombing Iran was bad.

The argument would instead be structural.

Trump knowingly exercised a power the Constitution assigns to Congress.

Congress had not authorized hostilities.

There was no immediate circumstance requiring instantaneous defensive action.

The operation carried a foreseeable risk of expanding into major warfare.

And the president nevertheless determined by himself that the United States would initiate military action against another sovereign state.

If Congress concludes that those facts constitute a deliberate usurpation of legislative authority, then the impeachment question becomes substantial.

The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly recognized that disputes over presidential initiation of hostilities remain among the most difficult unresolved questions in constitutional law (CRS, 2025a, 2025b).

Impeachment would therefore not be punishment for foreign policy.

It would be Congress defending its own constitutional authority.

The Cost of No Accountability

Imagine the precedent carried forward.

A future president decides China poses an intolerable threat.

American aircraft strike Chinese installations.

Congress was not consulted.

Another president decides North Korea’s nuclear program has become unacceptable.

Bombers attack North Korean facilities.

Congress was not consulted.

Another president decides Venezuela threatens American security.

Missiles strike Caracas.

Congress was not consulted.

Each president points backward.

Iran was bombed without prior congressional authorization.

Libya was attacked without a declaration of war.

Other presidents launched strikes.

Congress tolerated it.

Therefore the president possesses the authority.

That is how constitutional power migrates.

Not usually through a dramatic announcement that the Constitution has been abolished.

It migrates through precedent.

One president pushes the boundary.

Congress does nothing.

The next president starts from the new boundary and pushes again.

Eventually Article I may continue saying that Congress has the power to declare war while presidents possess the practical power to initiate virtually any war they choose.

At that point the constitutional language remains.

The constitutional restraint does not.

The danger is especially severe because warfare is unlike most presidential decisions.

A regulation can be repealed.

A budget can be amended.

An executive order can be rescinded.

A military strike cannot be unlaunched.

People die.

Other governments respond.

Alliances activate.

Markets react.

Armies mobilize.

Wars expand.

That is why the decision to begin hostilities was never supposed to belong casually to one person.

Trump’s Iran strikes therefore force Congress to confront a question it has avoided under presidents of both parties:

Does Congress actually possess the war power the Constitution gives it, or has decades of congressional surrender transferred that power to the presidency?

If the answer is the latter, then Donald Trump is not the endpoint of the problem.

He is another step in a constitutional transformation that has been occurring for generations.

And the president who eventually inherits the fully developed version of that power may be far more dangerous than Trump.

References

Congressional Research Service. (2025a). Presidential power to use military force: Selected legal issues. U.S. Congress.

Congressional Research Service. (2025b). The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and practice. U.S. Congress.

Hamilton, A. (1788/1961). Federalist No. 69. In C. Rossiter (Ed.), The Federalist Papers. New American Library.

Madison, J. (1793/1906). Helvidius No. 1. In G. Hunt (Ed.), The writings of James Madison (Vol. 6). G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

The White House. (2025a, June 21). President Trump announces successful strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Executive Office of the President.

The White House. (2025b). Report to Congress consistent with the War Powers Resolution concerning United States military operations against Iranian nuclear facilities. Executive Office of the President.

U.S. Constitution, art. I, § 8; art. II, § 2.

U.S. House of Representatives. (2025a). Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors (H. Res. 537, 119th Cong.).

U.S. House of Representatives. (2025b). Directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress (H. Con. Res. 38, 119th Cong.).

U.S. House of Representatives. (2025c, June 24). Roll call vote on motion to table H. Res. 537, 119th Congress.

U.S. Senate. (2025). A joint resolution directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress (S.J. Res. 59, 119th Cong.).

War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548 (1973).

https://www.europesays.com/people/245367/ Rep. Jordan Predicts 3rd Trump Impeachment if Dems Win #democrats #DonaldTrump #HakeemJeffries #house #HouseJudiciaryCommittee #JamieRaskin #JimJordan #JohnCatsimatidis #TrumpImpeachment #TrumpInauguration

https://www.europesays.com/people/230238/ Democrat Effort To Impeach Trump Fails In House #AiAssisted #AlGreen #CBP #democrats #HakeemJeffries #HouseVote #ICE #Republicans #TrumpImpeachment

https://www.europesays.com/people/230093/ Democrat Effort To Impeach Trump Fails In House #AiAssisted #AlGreen #CBP #democrats #HakeemJeffries #HouseVote #ICE #Republicans #TrumpImpeachment

https://www.europesays.com/people/229959/ Democrat Effort To Impeach Trump Fails In House #AiAssisted #AlGreen #CBP #democrats #HakeemJeffries #HouseVote #ICE #Republicans #TrumpImpeachment

https://www.europesays.com/people/229513/ Democrat Effort To Impeach Trump Fails In House #AiAssisted #AlGreen #CBP #democrats #HakeemJeffries #HouseVote #ICE #Republicans #TrumpImpeachment

https://www.europesays.com/people/228580/ House Democrats abstain on Trump impeachment vote #HakeemJeffries #TrumpImpeachment

The President and the Rule of Law: When the Defendant Returns to Power

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 8, 2026

Donald J. Trump is the president of the United States.

Donald J. Trump is also a convicted felon.

Those statements are simultaneously true.

On May 30, 2024, a New York jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The prosecution alleged that business records were falsified as part of an effort to conceal a payment made shortly before the 2016 presidential election (New York State Unified Court System, 2024a, 2024b).

Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing, denounced the prosecution as politically motivated, and pursued appellate challenges to the conviction. His conviction therefore should not be described as beyond legal challenge. As of this writing, however, the jury verdict has not been overturned, and Trump remains convicted while pursuing his appeal (Reuters, 2026a).

That unprecedented situation raises an uncomfortable question for the United States.

The Constitution does not prohibit a convicted felon from serving as president.

But what happens to the rule of law when the person constitutionally charged with executing federal law has himself been criminally convicted—and when the presidency increasingly provides protections unavailable to ordinary citizens?

The answer is more complicated than simply declaring Trump’s conviction grounds for impeachment.

It is also considerably more important.

Thirty-Four Felony Convictions

Trump was indicted in New York in 2023 on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree under New York Penal Law § 175.10 (New York State Unified Court System, 2024c).

His trial began April 15, 2024.

After nearly seven weeks of proceedings, the jury began deliberations on May 29. On May 30, it returned guilty verdicts on all 34 counts (New York State Unified Court System, 2024b).

That wording matters.

Trump was not merely charged 34 times.

He was not simply accused by prosecutors.

A jury returned 34 guilty verdicts.

Those verdicts remain subject to appeal, as criminal convictions ordinarily are. Trump is entitled to challenge them through the appellate process, and an appellate court could ultimately reverse some or all of the convictions.

But unless and until that happens, describing Trump as a convicted felon is a statement of his current legal status, not political rhetoric (New York State Unified Court System, 2024b; Reuters, 2026a).

What Trump Was Actually Convicted Of

Precision is particularly important here because Trump’s New York case is routinely described inaccurately by both supporters and opponents.

Trump was convicted of falsifying business records in the first degree.

The charges arose from records associated with reimbursements to Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, following Cohen’s $130,000 payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Prosecutors argued that the records concealed an unlawful scheme intended to influence the election by suppressing potentially damaging information (New York State Unified Court System, 2024a).

Trump denied Daniels’ account of a sexual encounter and denied criminal wrongdoing.

The criminal issue was not whether having an extramarital sexual encounter is illegal.

It is not.

Nor was Trump convicted merely for paying someone to remain silent. Such agreements are not inherently criminal.

The prosecution concerned the manner in which business records were allegedly falsified and the purpose prosecutors said that falsification served.

That distinction is essential if this series is going to assess Trump’s conduct rather than caricature it.

The Sentence Was an Unconditional Discharge

Trump was sentenced on January 10, 2025, shortly before returning to the presidency.

The court imposed an unconditional discharge.

Under New York law, an unconditional discharge releases the defendant without conditions imposed upon that release (New York State Unified Court System, n.d.).

Trump therefore received no jail sentence and no probation.

That did not erase the verdict.

Judge Juan Merchan had previously explained the unusual constitutional problem confronting the court. Trump had been convicted, but he was preparing to assume the presidency. Merchan concluded that an unconditional discharge provided a means of bringing the criminal proceeding to judgment while avoiding interference with Trump’s forthcoming presidential responsibilities and preserving Trump’s ability to pursue an appeal (New York State Supreme Court, 2025).

The result was extraordinary.

The criminal justice system produced a felony conviction against a former president.

The electorate subsequently returned that defendant to the presidency.

And the sentencing court deliberately fashioned a punishment that would not interfere with the operation of the presidency.

None of those actions was necessarily unlawful.

Together, however, they illustrate the collision between presidential power and ordinary legal accountability.

A Criminal Conviction Is Not Automatically an Impeachable Offense

This point cannot be avoided simply because it complicates the argument for impeachment.

Trump’s New York convictions do not automatically constitute grounds for removing him from his present office.

The underlying conduct largely predates his first presidency. The jury verdict occurred after that presidency. The Constitution does not expressly declare that a president who has been convicted of a felony becomes ineligible to serve.

Impeachment is principally concerned with serious abuses associated with public office and public trust, rather than functioning as an automatic additional punishment for every crime an officeholder might commit (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2025).

That means Congress should be extremely cautious about constructing a third impeachment article that simply says:

Trump is a convicted felon; therefore Trump must be removed.

That argument is constitutionally weaker than many of Trump’s opponents may wish it were.

The New York conviction matters enormously.

But it matters primarily because it creates a larger constitutional problem concerning the relationship between the presidency and the law.

Then the Supreme Court Changed the Landscape

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States, one of the most consequential presidential-power cases in American history.

The Court held that a former president possesses absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity for official presidential acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts (Trump v. United States, 2024).

The decision did not declare presidents completely immune from criminal law.

That distinction is critical.

Unofficial conduct remains prosecutable.

But the decision established substantial criminal immunity surrounding official presidential actions and required courts to determine whether challenged conduct falls within protected presidential functions (Trump v. United States, 2024).

The majority reasoned that a president must be able to exercise constitutional authority without the threat that political opponents will later criminally prosecute legitimate presidential decisions. Without meaningful immunity, the Court reasoned, fear of prosecution could distort presidential decision-making (Trump v. United States, 2024).

That concern is not frivolous.

Imagine a system in which every departing president expects an incoming administration to prosecute controversial official decisions made by the previous administration.

Presidential government could quickly degenerate into cycles of political prosecution.

The majority attempted to prevent precisely that danger.

But the decision created another danger.

How Much Immunity Is Too Much?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.

The dissent warned that the majority had substantially altered the relationship between the presidency and criminal law and had created protection broad enough to place dangerous presidential misconduct beyond ordinary prosecution (Trump v. United States, 2024, Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

The disagreement between the majority and dissent exposes the central constitutional dilemma.

A president needs independence.

A president cannot function if every difficult decision carries a credible threat of personal prosecution from political enemies.

But a president also cannot become a monarch.

The American system was constructed around the proposition that governmental power is limited and that public officials remain subject to law.

The challenge is determining where necessary presidential independence ends and effective legal impunity begins.

That question is no longer academic.

Trump is serving a second term under an immunity doctrine created by litigation arising from his own previous presidency.

The Presidency Is Not Supposed to Be a Sanctuary From Law

The Constitution gives presidents extraordinary authority.

It does not explicitly create a general presidential exemption from law.

The president must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 3).

That language becomes particularly important when the president himself has a complicated relationship with the legal system.

A criminal conviction does not make every subsequent presidential decision illegitimate.

Nor does it establish that Trump is incapable of faithfully executing the laws.

But the combination of criminal conviction, presidential immunity, control over the executive branch, broad pardon authority, and authority over the Justice Department creates a structural problem unlike anything the United States has previously confronted.

The question becomes not simply whether Trump personally believes himself above the law.

The more important question is whether American institutions are constructing a presidency that functionally is.

The Justice Department Problem

The president appoints the attorney general and exercises enormous influence over the executive branch responsible for enforcing federal criminal law.

That authority is constitutionally legitimate.

But it becomes dangerous if law enforcement is transformed from an institution serving the United States into an institution serving the president personally.

Recent litigation illustrates why the distinction matters.

In August 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a ruling preventing Justice Department subpoenas directed at the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James because the prosecutor leading the investigation had been unlawfully installed in his position. James had previously brought the civil fraud case against Trump and his business and has argued that federal investigations involving her represent political retaliation. The Justice Department disputes that characterization and intends to seek Supreme Court review (Reuters, 2026b).

That ruling does not prove that Trump personally ordered an unlawful prosecution of James.

Nor does it prove that James committed no wrongdoing.

But it raises exactly the institutional question Congress must investigate:

Is federal prosecutorial authority being exercised according to neutral legal standards, or is governmental power being directed against people who previously investigated or prosecuted the president?

That distinction could become central to an impeachment inquiry.

The Rule of Law Requires More Than Courts

Americans often speak about the “rule of law” as though it simply means courts exist.

It means considerably more.

The rule of law requires that governmental power operate according to established legal rules rather than the personal wishes of whoever holds power.

It requires that political allies and political enemies be treated under the same legal standards.

It requires presidents to obey adverse judgments.

It requires prosecutors to exercise governmental authority for legitimate law-enforcement purposes.

And it requires that presidential power itself remain bounded by law.

Courts are one mechanism for maintaining those boundaries.

Congress is another.

That is where impeachment becomes relevant.

If presidential immunity makes certain official conduct difficult or impossible to prosecute criminally, impeachment becomes more important, not less important, as a constitutional accountability mechanism.

The Supreme Court itself recognized that its decision concerned criminal prosecution. It did not abolish impeachment (Trump v. United States, 2024).

The Constitution therefore still provides a political remedy for abuses of presidential authority even where criminal prosecution may be unavailable.

This Is Where a Third Impeachment Case Becomes Stronger

Trump’s 34 New York convictions alone provide a questionable foundation for a third impeachment because the underlying conduct predates his current presidency.

But suppose evidence establishes that, while president, Trump uses federal authority to punish prosecutors who previously investigated him.

Suppose executive agencies are directed toward personal retaliation.

Suppose presidential authority is used to obstruct lawful investigations.

Suppose officials are selected specifically to accomplish actions that other officials refuse to undertake because they believe those actions unlawful.

Suppose court orders are deliberately evaded.

Those would be different constitutional questions.

They would concern present presidential conduct.

And if sufficiently serious and sufficiently supported by evidence, they could fall squarely within the historical understanding of abuse of power and violation of public trust underlying “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (CRS, 2025).

That is why Trump’s legal history belongs in this series.

Not because being convicted automatically makes him impeachable.

Because his second presidency is testing whether the enormous powers of the presidency can be used to insulate the president himself from meaningful accountability.

The Cost of No Accountability

There is an easy mistake to make when discussing the rule of law.

It is to ask whether Donald Trump will go to prison.

That is not the most important question.

The more important question is whether the United States is developing two systems of accountability—one for ordinary citizens and another for presidents.

Trump was tried by a jury and convicted on 34 felony counts (New York State Unified Court System, 2024b).

He was elected president afterward.

The sentencing court imposed an unconditional discharge partly because of the extraordinary constitutional circumstances surrounding his return to office (New York State Supreme Court, 2025).

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has established absolute immunity for a president’s exercise of core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts (Trump v. United States, 2024).

Each individual development has a legal rationale.

The cumulative effect deserves considerably more attention.

Presidential immunity protects the office.

The pardon power protects executive discretion.

Prosecutorial discretion protects law enforcement.

Executive privilege protects presidential deliberation.

The separation of powers protects presidential independence.

Every one of those doctrines serves legitimate constitutional purposes.

But protections can accumulate.

At some point the question becomes whether the system has protected the presidency so thoroughly that it has become extraordinarily difficult to hold the president accountable when presidential power itself is abused.

That is where Congress enters the equation.

Impeachment was designed precisely because the Framers understood that ordinary criminal law would not always be sufficient to protect the republic from misconduct by powerful public officials (CRS, 2025).

If Congress refuses to use that power regardless of the evidence before it, the constitutional consequences extend far beyond Trump.

Every future president inherits the authority successfully claimed by previous presidents.

Every future president studies the boundaries previous presidents crossed without consequence.

And every future president learns something from what the other branches tolerated.

The ultimate danger is therefore not that Donald Trump possesses too much power.

It is that the office of the presidency itself may emerge from this era possessing power that no individual in a constitutional republic should possess without effective restraint.

Trump’s criminal conviction forces America to confront the question.

His presidency makes answering it unavoidable.

References

Congressional Research Service. (2025). Impeachment and the Constitution (R46013). U.S. Congress.

New York State Supreme Court. (2025). People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Ind. No. 71543-23. New York County.

New York State Unified Court System. (n.d.). Common sentences.

New York State Unified Court System. (2024a). People v. Trump, 2024 NY Slip Op 24148.

New York State Unified Court System. (2024b). People v. Trump, 2024 NY Slip Op 24328.

New York State Unified Court System. (2024c). People v. Trump, 2024 NY Slip Op 50464(U).

Reuters. (2026a, April 21). Trump defense lawyers depart law firm Sullivan & Cromwell for Gibson Dunn.

Reuters. (2026b, August 21). Appeals court upholds block on U.S. Justice Department subpoenas to New York attorney general’s office.

Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024).

U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 3.

The Unfinished Business of January 6: When Accountability Failed

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — September 1, 2026

On January 6, 2021, the constitutional machinery of the United States was performing one of its most routine and most important functions: Congress was counting electoral votes and formally completing the transfer of presidential power.

Then the Capitol was breached.

The attack itself has been examined through congressional hearings, criminal prosecutions, court proceedings, an impeachment trial, and the final report of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Arguments continue over responsibility for security failures, the motivations of individual participants, Donald Trump’s intentions, and the political character of subsequent investigations. Those disagreements belong in the historical record.

But one fact cannot reasonably be disputed: Congress was forced to suspend the constitutionally prescribed certification proceeding while a violent mob occupied portions of the United States Capitol (U.S. House Select Committee, 2022).

Trump was subsequently impeached by the House for “incitement of insurrection.” The Senate acquitted him when 57 senators voted guilty and 43 voted not guilty—ten votes short of the constitutionally required two-thirds majority (U.S. House of Representatives, 2021; U.S. Senate, 2021a).

Four years later, Trump returned to the White House.

January 6 therefore presents an extraordinary constitutional problem.

This is no longer merely a question about what happened in 2021.

It is a question about what the United States decided—or failed to decide—about presidential accountability.

January 6 Did Not Begin on January 6

Reducing January 6 to several hours of rioting misses much of the constitutional issue.

The House Select Committee concluded after its investigation that Trump had engaged in a broader effort to overturn the lawful result of the 2020 presidential election. Its final report drew upon documents and testimony from numerous Republicans and members of Trump’s own administration and campaign, including former Justice Department officials, White House personnel, campaign officials, state officials, and others (U.S. House Select Committee, 2022).

The committee concluded that Trump continued promoting false allegations of widespread election fraud after courts rejected numerous challenges and after advisers told him that evidence did not support claims sufficient to reverse the election result (U.S. House Select Committee, 2022).

The committee also concluded that Trump pressured state officials concerning election results, participated in efforts involving alternative electoral certificates, sought assistance from Justice Department officials, and pressured Vice President Mike Pence not to count certain electoral votes during the January 6 joint session of Congress (U.S. House Select Committee, 2022).

Those were findings of a congressional committee, not criminal convictions.

That distinction matters.

Trump and his supporters have consistently rejected the committee’s interpretation, characterized the investigation as partisan, maintained that he genuinely believed the election had been compromised, and argued that his political speech and challenges to election results were constitutionally protected.

But disagreement with the committee does not erase the evidence it collected. The historical record includes testimony from Trump’s own officials describing repeated warnings that allegations being advanced about the election were unsupported (U.S. House Select Committee, 2022).

The constitutional issue therefore reaches beyond the riot itself.

It concerns an incumbent president’s response to losing an election.

The Vice President Was Asked to Do Something He Could Not Lawfully Do

Vice President Mike Pence became central to Trump’s effort.

Trump and allies argued that Pence possessed authority during the congressional electoral count to reject or delay electoral votes from contested states.

Pence rejected that argument.

The January 6 Committee concluded that Trump pressured Pence to refuse to count electoral votes despite being informed that the proposed action lacked lawful constitutional authority (U.S. House Select Committee, 2022).

That episode is significant because the peaceful transfer of presidential power depends upon losing candidates eventually accepting an institutional answer they do not like.

Candidates can demand recounts.

They can file lawsuits.

They can challenge election procedures.

They can seek investigations.

They can argue that election laws were violated.

But eventually the courts rule, states certify their results, electors vote, Congress counts those votes, and power changes hands.

The American constitutional system cannot function if an incumbent president possesses an effective unilateral veto over that process.

Then Came the Capitol

Trump addressed supporters near the White House on January 6 before Congress convened to count the electoral votes. He urged supporters to march to the Capitol while also telling them to make their voices heard “peacefully and patriotically.”

That language is an important part of Trump’s defense and should not be omitted from any serious assessment of his responsibility.

His defenders argue that this explicit reference to peaceful protest contradicts the allegation that Trump intended to provoke violence.

The House impeachment managers argued differently. They maintained that the speech had to be understood within the context of Trump’s months-long campaign challenging the election result, his rhetoric surrounding January 6, and pressure directed toward Pence and other officials (U.S. House of Representatives, 2021).

The Select Committee later examined Trump’s December 19, 2020 announcement promoting the January 6 protest and concluded that his public messaging helped mobilize supporters who ultimately came to Washington (U.S. House Select Committee, 2022).

The Capitol was subsequently breached.

Members of Congress evacuated or sheltered.

Police officers fought rioters.

The electoral count stopped.

Whatever political terminology one prefers for January 6—riot, attack, insurrection, protest that became violent—the constitutional proceeding was physically disrupted.

That alone made January 6 unlike an ordinary political demonstration.

The 187 Minutes

One of the Select Committee’s most consequential findings concerned what Trump did after the Capitol had been breached.

The committee devoted an entire chapter of its final report to what it called “187 Minutes of Dereliction,” examining the period between the end of Trump’s Ellipse speech and his eventual video message telling supporters to leave the Capitol (U.S. House Select Committee, 2022).

According to the committee’s reconstruction, people around Trump urged him to intervene publicly while the violence continued. The committee concluded that Trump did not immediately issue an unequivocal public demand that rioters leave the Capitol and that he continued focusing on the electoral count while the attack unfolded (U.S. House Select Committee, 2022).

Trump and his defenders dispute the committee’s characterization of his actions and intentions.

But the underlying constitutional question is difficult to avoid.

The president of the United States is not merely another political commentator watching a riot on television.

The president heads the executive branch.

When violence physically interrupts Congress while it performs a constitutional function, presidential responsibility is qualitatively different from that of an ordinary citizen.

That is why those 187 minutes matter.

Congress Impeached Him

The House acted one week later.

On January 13, 2021, the House approved H.Res. 24, impeaching Trump for incitement of insurrection. Ten Republicans joined Democrats in voting for impeachment (U.S. House of Representatives, 2021).

Trump’s term ended January 20.

His Senate trial therefore occurred after he had left office, creating a constitutional dispute over whether the Senate retained jurisdiction to try a former president.

The Senate voted 56–44 that Trump remained subject to an impeachment trial for acts committed while president (U.S. Senate, 2021b).

The final vote was considerably more striking.

Fifty-seven senators voted guilty.

Forty-three voted not guilty.

Seven Republican senators joined every Democratic and independent senator voting to convict (U.S. Senate, 2021a).

Under almost any ordinary voting rule, 57–43 would be an overwhelming victory.

Impeachment is deliberately different.

The Constitution requires two-thirds of senators present to convict. Trump therefore was acquitted (U.S. Const. art. I, § 3; U.S. Senate, 2021a).

That acquittal must be respected as the formal constitutional result.

But understanding why some senators voted to acquit is equally important.

Even McConnell Said Trump Was Responsible

Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted to acquit Trump.

Immediately afterward, however, McConnell delivered a remarkable speech.

He argued that Trump was “practically and morally responsible” for provoking the events of January 6 while maintaining that the Senate lacked jurisdiction to convict someone who was no longer president (McConnell, 2021).

In other words, McConnell’s acquittal vote was not an endorsement of Trump’s conduct.

Other Republican senators similarly relied upon jurisdictional arguments in explaining their votes.

That distinction changes the historical meaning of the 43 acquittal votes.

The Senate did not produce 43 senators unanimously declaring that Trump’s conduct was acceptable.

It produced a coalition containing senators who rejected the House’s case on the merits and others who believed the Constitution prevented them from convicting a former president.

Whether that jurisdictional interpretation was correct remains disputed. The Senate itself had already voted 56–44 that it possessed jurisdiction (U.S. Senate, 2021b).

The consequence, however, was unmistakable.

Trump was not convicted.

He was not disqualified from future federal office.

And eventually he returned.

The Criminal Case Never Produced a Verdict

January 6 also entered the criminal justice system.

Special Counsel Jack Smith obtained a federal indictment alleging that Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 election. Trump pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing.

The case never reached a jury verdict.

After Trump won the 2024 presidential election, prosecutors moved to dismiss the federal case because longstanding Justice Department policy holds that a sitting president cannot be federally prosecuted.

That distinction is critical to the historical record.

The dismissal did not constitute an acquittal after trial.

Nor did the indictment constitute proof of guilt.

The central federal criminal allegations concerning Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election therefore ended without a jury determining guilt or innocence.

Once again, the institutional machinery of accountability reached Trump but did not produce a final adjudication of the underlying allegations.

Then Trump Pardoned the January 6 Defendants

Trump’s return to office transformed January 6 from historical controversy into a matter involving his second presidency.

On January 20, 2025—his first day back in office—Trump issued clemency covering nearly all defendants convicted of offenses related to January 6. He commuted the sentences of specified defendants, granted full pardons to others, and directed the attorney general to seek dismissal of remaining January 6 indictments (The White House, 2025).

The White House has defended those actions aggressively, describing January 6 defendants as victims of politically motivated prosecution and presenting Trump’s clemency as an effort to correct injustice and promote reconciliation (The White House, 2025).

The president unquestionably possesses broad constitutional pardon authority over federal offenses.

The question for this series is therefore not simply whether Trump could issue the pardons.

He could.

The larger question is what their issuance means for presidential accountability.

A president impeached over an attack connected to an effort to prevent the transfer of power returned four years later and used presidential authority to erase or reduce federal criminal consequences for many of the people prosecuted in connection with that attack.

That is constitutionally legal clemency.

It is also historically extraordinary.

Both things can be true simultaneously.

January 6 Cannot Simply Become Article III

There is a temptation for Trump’s opponents to say: January 6 was impeachable in 2021, therefore impeach him for January 6 again in 2026.

That would be a weak way to construct a third impeachment.

Trump has already been impeached and tried for his January 6-related conduct.

A credible new impeachment case should principally concern conduct undertaken during his current presidency.

January 6 instead performs another function.

It provides context.

It tells Congress what happened the last time institutions confronted Trump over alleged abuse of presidential power and an attempt to remain in office after losing an election.

It tells Congress what happened when the House impeached him.

It tells Congress what happened when 57 senators voted to convict him but the constitutional supermajority was not reached.

And Trump’s return to office tells Congress what an acquittal can ultimately mean.

The Cost of No Accountability

This is where January 6 becomes larger than Donald Trump.

The Constitution contains rules governing elections and transfers of power, but those rules ultimately depend upon human beings respecting and enforcing them.

Suppose a future president loses an election.

Suppose that president pressures state officials.

Suppose the president encourages alternative interpretations of electoral law designed to preserve his own power.

Suppose the president pressures the vice president.

Suppose supporters then disrupt the congressional proceeding that formalizes the president’s defeat.

What lesson does January 6 provide that future president?

The answer cannot simply be that everything worked out.

Yes, Congress reconvened.

Yes, the electoral votes were counted.

Yes, Joe Biden became president on January 20, 2021.

The immediate constitutional process survived.

But accountability is a different question.

Trump was impeached.

He was acquitted.

The federal criminal case against him never reached a verdict.

He regained the presidency.

And after returning to office, he exercised presidential clemency for nearly all federal defendants prosecuted for January 6-related offenses (The White House, 2025).

None of those individual events proves that the Constitution has failed.

Taken together, however, they establish a precedent that deserves serious consideration.

Constitutional restraints are partly constructed from expectations. Presidents know that certain actions will bring consequences because previous presidents saw those consequences imposed.

When consequences repeatedly fail to materialize, expectations change.

The danger is not necessarily that another president will reproduce January 6 exactly.

History rarely repeats itself that neatly.

The danger is that a future president will study what happened and conclude that the boundaries can be pushed farther.

Maybe Congress can be pressured more aggressively.

Maybe state officials can be threatened more directly.

Maybe federal law enforcement can be manipulated more effectively.

Maybe an election defeat can be resisted more systematically.

Maybe the next effort will be conducted by people who learned from the mistakes of the previous one.

That is the unfinished business of January 6.

America successfully transferred power on January 20, 2021.

What America never conclusively established was the price a president must pay for attempting to interfere with that transfer.

Donald Trump returned to office before the country settled that question.

Now the answer matters not only for him.

It matters for every president who comes afterward.

References

McConnell, M. (2021, February 13). Remarks following the Senate impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump. United States Senate.

The White House. (2025, January 20). Granting pardons and commutation of sentences for certain offenses relating to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

U.S. Constitution, art. I, § 3.

U.S. House of Representatives. (2021). Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors (H. Res. 24, 117th Cong.).

U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. (2022). Final report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (H. Rept. 117-663). U.S. Government Publishing Office.

U.S. Senate. (2021a, February 13). Roll call vote 59: Article of impeachment against former President Donald John Trump.

U.S. Senate. (2021b, February 9). Roll call vote 57: Whether former President Donald John Trump is subject to a court of impeachment for acts committed while president.

https://www.europesays.com/people/201159/ Air Force major faces rare criminal charges after calling for Trump’s impeachment #AirForceMajorCallsForTrump'sImpeachment #AirForceMajorCharged #JasonWatson #MajJasonWatson #MajorChargedAfterCallingForTrump'sImpeachment #POTUS #PresidentDonaldTrump #PresidentOfTheUnitedStates #PresidentTrump #TrumpImpeachment #USAirForce

The Constitutional Case: What Does “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” Actually Mean?

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — August 25, 2026

Donald J. Trump has already been impeached twice. He was acquitted twice. He returned to the presidency anyway.

Now, during Trump’s second administration, members of Congress have again introduced articles of impeachment. That raises a question more important than whether Americans like or dislike Donald Trump: What conduct actually justifies removing a president under the Constitution of the United States?

That is where this series must begin.

The Constitution does not say that presidents may be impeached because they are unpopular, offensive, dishonest, incompetent, reckless, or politically objectionable. Nor does it say that impeachment requires prosecutors first to prove a violation of the federal criminal code. Article II establishes a different standard: the president may be removed following impeachment and conviction for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (U.S. Const. art. II, § 4).

Understanding those last five words is essential. Without that foundation, a discussion about impeaching Trump for a third time becomes little more than another partisan argument. With it, however, Congress and the public can ask a considerably more serious question:

Has Donald Trump used the powers entrusted to the presidency in ways sufficiently dangerous to the constitutional order to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors?

Impeachment Is Not an Ordinary Criminal Trial

One of the most persistent misconceptions about impeachment is that a president must commit an indictable criminal offense before Congress can act.

That is not the historical standard.

The Congressional Research Service notes that the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” descended from English parliamentary practice and historically encompassed serious abuses of governmental office, including corruption, misuse of public funds, neglect of duty, violations of legislative rights, abuses of official power, and betrayals of the public trust (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2025).

Congress’s own Constitution Annotated reaches much the same conclusion. American impeachment practice has included misconduct involving abuse of official authority, behavior fundamentally incompatible with the responsibilities of office, and use of office for improper or personal purposes (Library of Congress, n.d.-a).

That distinction is crucial.

A president could theoretically violate a criminal statute without committing an impeachable offense. Conversely, a president could commit a profound abuse of constitutional authority without the conduct fitting neatly within a particular criminal statute.

Alexander Hamilton anticipated precisely this problem in Federalist No. 65. He described impeachable offenses as arising from misconduct by public officials and from the “abuse or violation of some public trust” (Hamilton, 1788/1961).

The emphasis is on public trust.

Impeachment therefore exists not simply to punish wrongdoing but to protect constitutional government from an officeholder who abuses the extraordinary powers entrusted to that office (CRS, 2025; Library of Congress, n.d.-b).

The Framers Deliberately Rejected Impeachment for Mere Bad Government

There is an equally important limitation.

The Framers did not intend impeachment to become a congressional vote of no confidence whenever Congress disliked a president.

During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason proposed including “maladministration” among the grounds for impeachment. James Madison objected that such a broad term could effectively make a president dependent upon the pleasure of the Senate. The Convention instead adopted “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” thereby demanding something more serious than incompetence, policy disagreement, or ordinary political failure (CRS, 2025).

That principle matters enormously when discussing Trump.

Disagreeing with Trump’s immigration policies is not, by itself, grounds for impeachment.

Disagreeing with his tariffs is not grounds for impeachment.

Disliking his foreign policy is not grounds for impeachment.

Finding his rhetoric offensive is not grounds for impeachment.

Voting against him is politics.

Removing him through impeachment requires something more.

The constitutional issue begins when presidential conduct arguably crosses from controversial policy into abuse of governmental power, corruption, obstruction, violation of constitutional responsibilities, or betrayal of the public trust (Library of Congress, n.d.-a; CRS, 2025).

That is the line this series will investigate.

Donald Trump Is Already an Extraordinary Constitutional Case

No American president has occupied Trump’s position in constitutional history.

The House first impeached Trump on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted him on February 5, 2020 (U.S. House of Representatives, 2026; U.S. Senate, 2020).

The House impeached him again on January 13, 2021, this time for incitement of insurrection following the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The Senate trial ended with 57 senators voting guilty and 43 voting not guilty—ten votes short of the 67 required for conviction (U.S. House of Representatives, 2021; U.S. Senate, 2021).

That vote deserves particular attention.

Trump was acquitted. That is the constitutional result and should be stated plainly.

But 57 senators—including seven Republicans—voted to convict him (U.S. Senate, 2021). The result therefore cannot accurately be described as a determination that Trump’s conduct was universally considered acceptable or harmless.

Indeed, some senators who voted to acquit explicitly condemned Trump’s behavior while arguing that the Senate lacked constitutional authority to convict a former president. Republican Senator John Thune, for example, said his acquittal vote should not be understood as exoneration of Trump’s conduct surrounding January 6 (Thune, 2021).

The Senate had separately voted 56–44 that a former president could constitutionally be tried for acts committed while president, but that procedural dispute remained central to the defense offered by several senators who ultimately voted for acquittal (U.S. Senate, 2021b).

That history matters because Donald Trump did something unprecedented afterward:

He returned to the presidency.

January 6 Is History, but It Is Not Irrelevant

January 6, 2021, cannot simply be recycled as a new impeachable offense in 2026.

Trump was already impeached for conduct associated with that event. The Senate already tried him. It acquitted him (U.S. House of Representatives, 2021; U.S. Senate, 2021a).

But that does not make January 6 irrelevant.

It becomes part of the historical record against which later presidential conduct can be evaluated.

If Congress investigates whether a president is abusing power, attempting to place himself beyond legal restraint, obstructing constitutional institutions, or using government authority against perceived enemies, previous confrontations with constitutional restraints may become relevant to understanding the seriousness and pattern of later conduct.

That is different from trying Trump twice for the same conduct.

The question in 2026 must be whether conduct during the current presidency independently meets the constitutional threshold for impeachment.

And Congress has already begun asking exactly that question.

A Third Impeachment Is No Longer Merely Hypothetical

On April 28, 2025, Representative Shri Thanedar introduced H.Res. 353, formally titled Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors (U.S. House of Representatives, 2025).

The resolution proposed multiple articles involving allegations of obstruction and abuse of executive power, usurpation of congressional authority, violations of due process, attacks on freedom of expression and other abuses of presidential authority (U.S. House of Representatives, 2025).

The existence of an impeachment resolution does not prove the allegations contained within it.

That distinction is essential.

Members of Congress can introduce resolutions for political as well as constitutional reasons. An accusation contained in an article of impeachment is still an accusation until the underlying evidence is examined.

But H.Res. 353 demonstrates something important: the constitutional question this series is examining is already before Congress.

The issue is therefore not whether somebody could imagine impeaching Donald Trump again.

Some members of Congress already have.

The real question is whether the evidence supports them.

Criminality and Impeachability Are Different Questions

This distinction will become increasingly important as this series examines Trump’s broader legal history.

A criminal conviction does not automatically establish an impeachable offense. Likewise, the absence of a criminal conviction does not automatically establish that presidential conduct is constitutionally acceptable.

The Constitution treats the two processes separately. Article I specifically provides that impeachment judgments do not prevent the person convicted by the Senate from later being “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 7).

That separation is deliberate.

Criminal courts determine criminal liability.

The House determines whether an official should be impeached.

The Senate determines whether that official should be convicted and removed.

Those institutions answer related but fundamentally different questions (Library of Congress, n.d.-b).

For Donald Trump, therefore, criminal cases, civil judgments, January 6, presidential actions, executive orders, conflicts with Congress, confrontations with courts, foreign-policy decisions, and alleged uses of governmental power for personal or political purposes cannot simply be thrown into one enormous pile labeled “impeachment.”

Each must be examined individually.

The evidence must be separated from rhetoric.

The constitutional significance must be established.

And Trump’s defenses must be considered alongside the accusations.

Anything less would turn impeachment into precisely the partisan weapon the Framers feared.

The Question This Series Will Ask

Over the next nine Tuesdays, WPS News will examine whether a credible constitutional case exists for the third impeachment of Donald J. Trump.

The standard will not be whether Trump is a good president.

It will not be whether his policies are progressive or conservative.

It will not be whether Democrats despise him or Republicans defend him.

The standard will be whether documented conduct constitutes the kind of serious abuse of official power, corruption, obstruction, constitutional violation, or betrayal of public trust historically encompassed by “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Hamilton, 1788/1961; CRS, 2025; Library of Congress, n.d.-a).

That requires evidence.

It also requires restraint.

Where allegations are unproven, they will be identified as allegations. Where courts have ruled, those rulings will be identified. Where constitutional scholars disagree, that disagreement will be acknowledged. Where the administration offers a substantive defense, that defense belongs in the record.

The purpose is not to manufacture an impeachment case.

The purpose is to determine whether one already exists.

The Cost of No Accountability

There is another question running underneath this entire series.

What happens if presidential misconduct repeatedly produces no lasting constitutional consequence?

Trump’s first impeachment ended in acquittal (U.S. Senate, 2020). His second impeachment ended in acquittal despite a 57-vote Senate majority favoring conviction (U.S. Senate, 2021a). He subsequently returned to the presidency.

That does not itself prove that either acquittal was constitutionally wrong. Senators had the authority to vote as they did.

But the cumulative precedent matters.

A constitution is not self-enforcing.

Words written on parchment cannot physically restrain a president. The separation of powers functions only when institutions exercise the powers given to them. Courts must issue judgments. Congress must legislate and conduct oversight. Elections must transfer authority. Executive officials must obey lawful constraints. And when an officer commits conduct serious enough to constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, Congress must decide whether impeachment is warranted.

The danger is larger than Donald Trump.

If conduct once considered disqualifying gradually becomes survivable, and conduct once considered an abuse of power becomes merely another partisan controversy, the practical limits surrounding the presidency change without a single word of the Constitution being amended.

Future presidents notice precedents.

They notice what previous presidents were allowed to do.

They notice which boundaries were enforced and which boundaries existed only on paper.

That is why impeachment was placed in the Constitution in the first place. It is not simply a mechanism for punishing an individual. It is one of the structural defenses intended to prevent executive power from overwhelming republican government (Library of Congress, n.d.-b; CRS, 2025).

The central question of this series is therefore not simply:

Has Donald Trump committed impeachable offenses?

There is a second question behind it:

If a president can repeatedly test the boundaries of constitutional power without meaningful accountability, what will those boundaries mean to the next president—and the president after that?

That may ultimately be the more important question.

References

Congressional Research Service. (2025). Impeachment and the Constitution (R46013). U.S. Congress. Congressional Research Service report

Hamilton, A. (1788/1961). Federalist No. 65. In C. Rossiter (Ed.), The Federalist Papers. New American Library.

Library of Congress. (n.d.-a). Overview of impeachable offenses. Constitution Annotated. Constitution Annotated: Overview of Impeachable Offenses

Library of Congress. (n.d.-b). Overview of impeachment clause. Constitution Annotated. Constitution Annotated: Overview of Impeachment Clause

Thune, J. (2021, February 13). Thune statement on conclusion of Senate impeachment trial. United States Senate. Senator Thune statement

U.S. House of Representatives. (2021, January 13). Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors (H. Res. 24, 117th Cong.). U.S. Government Publishing Office. H.Res. 24 official record

U.S. House of Representatives. (2025, April 28). Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors (H. Res. 353, 119th Cong.). H.Res. 353 official text

U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Historian. (2026). List of individuals impeached by the House of Representatives. House impeachment history

U.S. Senate. (2020, February 5). Senate floor activity: Wednesday, February 5, 2020. First Trump impeachment trial record

U.S. Senate. (2021a, February 13). Roll call vote 117th Congress—1st session: Vote 59. Senate impeachment verdict, 57–43

U.S. Senate. (2021b, February 9). Roll call vote 117th Congress—1st session: Vote 57. Senate jurisdiction vote, 56–44

U.S. Constitution, art. I, § 3, cl. 7; art. II, § 4.

https://www.europesays.com/people/110628/ Trump Pressuring House Republicans To ‘Expunge’ Both Impeachments Of Him #AlanDershowitz #HouseRepublicans #MikeJohnson #TrumpImpeachment #WallStreetJournal

Lawrence O’Donnell: “Donald Trump’s Outright Screaming Insanity!”

Posted by Jerry Alatalo | April 14, 2026

[Editor’s note: After seeing Lawrence O’Donnell deliver this devastating message last night on MS NOW and becoming greatly stunned with the content, it took little to no time for deciding to share the video here. Please share far and wide, and please feel free to share your response(s) in the comments. Thank you very much. Peace.]

https://youtu.be/ZLAoAamzza8?si=Z9WLUh8Q5S0fwebt

(Description: MS NOW’s Lawrence O’Donnell details what The New York Times calls Donald Trump’s “erratic behavior” after his Vice President, JD Vance, fails to reach a deal with Iran while Trump attends a UFC event in Miami.)

When I was young, the pope was the head of a child sex abuse ring while the president of the United States was a cool dude trying to hold the world together (aka "the good guy")¹

How things change …

______________________
¹ as you may have guessed, I wasn't yet born when Watergate happened

#uspol #politics #Trump #DonaldTrump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpAdministration2026 #SecondTrumpAdminstration #SecretaryOfWarCrimes #TrumpImpeachment #25thAmendment

@GiftArticles
Re: trump #impeachment #impeachtrump #impeachNow #impeachmentNow #trumpImpeachment

What is Rule IX?
Rule IX of the House of Representatives allows any individual member to force a vote on impeachment, even without approval from House leadership.
https://citizensimpeachment.com/rule-ix-and-articles-of-impeachment/

https://www.europesays.com/people/18443/ Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office #democrats #DonaldTrump #HakeemJeffries #Trump25thAmendment #TrumpImpeachment #TrumpIranThreats

https://www.europesays.com/people/18301/ Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office #democrats #DonaldTrump #HakeemJeffries #Trump25thAmendment #TrumpImpeachment #TrumpIranThreats

Executive Dislocation: The 'I-Word' and Legal Recourse

In 2019, Donald Trump called impeachment 'the I-word' and threatened to use the Supreme Court against Congress. See how this changed impeachment.

#TrumpImpeachment, #SCOTUS, #PoliticalStrategy, #ExecutivePower, #2019Politics

https://newsletter.tf/trump-i-word-supreme-court-impeachment-2019/

In 2019, Donald Trump used the term 'I-word' instead of impeachment and threatened to go to the Supreme Court. This was a new way to fight Congress.

#TrumpImpeachment, #SCOTUS, #PoliticalStrategy, #ExecutivePower, #2019Politics
https://newsletter.tf/trump-i-word-supreme-court-impeachment-2019/

Rep. John Larson files articles of impeachment against Trump

U.S. Rep. John Larson announced Tuesday he has introduced articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, following his…
#NewsBeep #News #Headlines #JohnLarsonimpeachment #Trumpimpeachment #trumpiran #UnitedStates #Us #USA
https://www.newsbeep.com/474855/

Surprise! I don't give a fuck about Bill Cassidy's survival.

Trump impeachment and RFK Jr. votes loom as Sen. Bill Cassidy fights for political survival
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/trump-impeachment-rfk-jr-votes-bill-cassidy-political-survival-rcna266014

#BillCassidy #TrumpImpeachment #RFKImpeachment #RepublicansDidThis #NoRepublicansEverAgain #USPol

https://www.europesays.com/people/15293/ Trump impeachment row: 28% chance that POTUS will be removed before 2028; Iran war haunting him #DonaldTrumpNew #POTUS #PresidentOfTheUnitedStates #TrumpImpeachment #TrumpIranThreat #UsIranWar #USIranWarUpdates #WasNewsToday

https://www.europesays.com/people/11818/ Trump 25th Amendment row: Melania, Kai Trump share updates as approval ratings dip #25thAmendment #DonaldTrump25thAmendment #DonaldTrumpHealth #KaiTrump #StraitOfHormuz #Trump #TrumpImpeachment #TrumpSection4

@Free_Press This man is crazy #trumpimpeachment

Are We 25th Amendment Yet?

Article republished by Jerry Alatalo (Source: Sonar21.com) | March 30, 2026

(Psychiatrist to Donald Trump: “The Iranians you’ve been talking to for 2 days … Are they in the room with us now?”)

[Editor’s note: Peter Hanseler writes:

On the one hand, he could hand out $100 million to a colleague or family member with a quick tweet; this kind of behavior doesn’t surprise me in the least. The fact that U.S. authorities didn’t immediately launch an investigation into this criminal activity says everything about the state of the country. I assume that no one wants to risk their life. I discussed this matter with a financial expert. His words: “Compared to these people, the Mafia is as dangerous as Mother Teresa!” Unless there is a coup in the US—and who should carry it out?—this crime will not be punished.

and … The President of the U(nited) S(tates) has now squandered all credibility. But in this position—whether he realizes it or not is irrelevant—he is also squandering the credibility of the country he leads on behalf of its citizens.]

Please feel free to share this important information far and wide. Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you very much. Peace.

***

A Baron of Lies Turns the World Upside Down—and Loses

Donald Trump is not only endangering the world with his megalomania and greed, but will likely go down in history as a baron of lies. What is the real situation, given that the Western media actually believe Trump’s nonsense?

By Peter Hanseler via ForumGeopolitica.com

29 March 2026

Introduction

Comedians are being deprived of their creativity: to turn Trump’s remarks into slapstick, you only have to do one thing—nothing at all. If you just let him speak, he provides “top-notch” entertainment at the lowest possible level. Less amusing is the fact that the Western media, which purports to offer reporting and analysis, takes this utter nonsense seriously. If you follow experts in the West, you’ll rub your eyes and ears in disbelief.

Never before have reporting and assessments been so riddled with nonsense and so far removed from reality. The people and media of the West, in their Diederich Hessling-like subservience, don’t even begin to realize that they are being led into disaster by the powerful in Israel and the US. Instead of preparing people for the fact that the West—above all Europe—is heading toward collapse and deprivation, rosy forecasts are being issued

Yet careful research certainly makes it possible to paint a realistic picture. This is a laborious task, as the entire West has conspired to lie to the world. Through censorship and AI, the circles that shape public opinion and shape policy have the means to make Western populations believe that the Israelis are the good guys and that the Americans will prevail. This is nothing new: there have always been only winners in a war. Thus, the Nazis tried to convince their people until 1945 that final victory was tantalisingly close. During the wars in Korea and Vietnam, the Americans “won,” and Russia has been “losing” in Ukraine for four years. And now the Americans and Israelis are “winning” in Iran, Lebanon, indeed throughout the entire Middle East.

The fact that this propaganda cannot be true is also evident from the fact that the claims are becoming increasingly fantastical—even the famous Baron Münchhausen would blush.

As always in my reporting, this is merely an attempt to describe and analyze the overall situation. Too many factors are at play simultaneously around the world, and when conducting an analysis, there is always a risk that one might omit certain facts—deeming them irrelevant to the overall trend—only to be proven wrong by reality later on.

Big Lies

Negotiations that Don’t Exist and Criminal Insider Trading

On March 22, President Trump gave the Iranians 48 hours to open the Strait of Hormuz, warning that otherwise the US would destroy Iran’s power plants.

The Iranians did not respond to this threat.

On March 23, the tone was quite different. Trump claimed that the US was engaged in productive negotiations with Iran and that, given their positive progress, he would refrain from attacking Iran’s energy infrastructure for the next five days.

A few minutes before Trump’s announcement was released, something interesting happened in the financial markets.

Around 6,200 Brent and West Texas Intermediate futures contracts changed hands on Monday between 6:49 a.m. and 6:50 a.m. New York time, just 15 minutes before Trump’s tweet on Truth Social stating that there had been “productive talks” with Tehran in recent days regarding ending the war in Iran. According to calculations by the FT based on Bloomberg data, the nominal value of these trades amounted to $580 million.

At the same time, a single trader purchased S&P 500 futures worth $1.5 billion.

Shortly after Trump’s announcement, the S&P futures rose by 2.5% and the price of oil plummeted by 10%.

The individual in question made well over $100 million from these trades. This insider must inevitably be one of President Trump’s closest associates.

“Compared to these people, the Mafia is about as harmless as Mother Teresa!”

The response from Iran was swift: there are no direct or indirect talks between Tehran and Washington.

Why did Trump Spread this Lie?

On the one hand, he could hand out $100 million to a colleague or family member with a quick tweet; this kind of behavior doesn’t surprise me in the least. The fact that U.S. authorities didn’t immediately launch an investigation into this criminal activity says everything about the state of the country. I assume that no one wants to risk their life. I discussed this matter with a financial expert. His words: “Compared to these people, the Mafia is as dangerous as Mother Teresa!” Unless there is a coup in the US—and who should carry it out?—this crime will not be punished.

Apart from this “favor for a friend,” this move is a sign that the American president has completely lost touch with reality. The Iranians have not the slightest interest in negotiating with Trump and his associates. The Americans’ willingness to negotiate, on the other hand, is a clear indication that things are not going as planned.

Another Lie – Extension of the Deadline

On March 26, Trump extended the deadline to April 6. The reason? – The Iranians had asked for it. Another lie. Because Iran has absolutely no interest in negotiating with the Americans.

It’s unclear whether Trump has actually lost his mind or whether he thinks he can achieve anything positive with this strategy—the humorists have already taken over following the 48-hour ultimatum.

No level-headed analyst was surprised when the US and Israel broke their “promise” shortly after this tweet. Among other targets, Israel struck two of Iran’s largest steel mills, a power plant, and civilian nuclear facilities. The Israelis claimed they acted in coordination with the US, which is certainly true, since no Israeli aircraft can attack Iran without US tanker aircraft and cannot return without their assistance.

Trump and the Numbers

A juicy tidbit was published on March 26: Trump claims that Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia each gave him $2 trillion. The only catch: the combined gross domestic product of these three countries is $3 trillion.

Zahlen, die Trump nicht erfreuen

Yesterday, anti-war protests took place in countless cities across the US; estimates put the number of participants at over 7 million.

The Latest Example of a Lie – A Laundry Dryer Takes the World’s Largest Warship Out of Commission

One of the Americans’ most entertaining lies concerns their largest warship—the aircraft carrier “Gerald Ford.” According to the US, a fire broke out due to a defective laundry dryer that could not be extinguished for ten days. This symbol of American military superiority has now docked at a port in Split. According to the latest official US reports, repairs to the damage caused by the laundry dryer will take between 14 and 24 months. Although video clips are circulating suggesting that Trump confirmed a missile attack on the aircraft carrier, these clips actually refer to Venezuela. I consider it impossible that a laundry dryer could put the world’s largest warship out of commission for up to two years.

In Split angekommen verkülndete der Kommandierende Offizier:

“The crew is excited to be back in Split for some well-deserved liberty […] they have accomplished so much since our initial visit in October.”

Capt. David Skarosi, commanding officer of Gerald R. Ford

A Dangerous Man

The President of the US has now squandered all credibility. But in this position—whether he realizes it or not is irrelevant—he is also squandering the credibility of the country he leads on behalf of its citizens.

No one can take pleasure in the fact that the most powerful country on earth has lost the trust of other nations, not even Iran, which has been attacked by the US. For every war eventually comes to an end, usually through a treaty or an agreement. But given the US President’s actions, which defy rational understanding, who can trust his signature—or that of a representative acting on his behalf?

I see no advantage in having the US as a weakened player on the geopolitical chessboard—one with whom one cannot negotiate.

Yet today, these are precisely the realities of global politics. The Iranians negotiate neither with the US and Israel nor with their allies. Their experience tells them that would be their death sentence. So they must establish facts on the battlefield.

We will now leave the comedy club created by Trump and turn our attention to reality.

The Reality Looks Different

Israel is being Destroyed and the Israelis are being Decimated in Lebanon

The damage in Israel’s cities is devastating. But no one should be surprised—Israelis see themselves as victims. That is the self-image of the overwhelming majority of the Jewish Israeli population.

Despite draconian penalties of five years in prison for publishing reports on attacks and destruction, thousands of images and videos can be found online that document what, from a Western perspective, is not supposed to exist. Since Friday, parts of Tel Aviv have been in the dark: the power supply is suffering. It is also striking that the Israeli air defense system, which was already struggling from the start, has practically ground to a halt. Patricia Marins reports that eight out of ten Iranian missiles hitting Israel are hitting their targets. On top of that, Hezbollah has intensified its missile attacks in recent days. The Israelis are thus being fired upon from two sides—and now the Houthis are joining in, more on that below.

Few people are paying attention to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon—part of the “Greater Israel” project. The first attempt, back in 2006, ended in disaster. The Israelis seem to be lacking the stamina this time around as well. According to various reports, the Israelis have already lost over 100 tanks, 21 of them in the last 24 hours alone.

According to reports, the military’s Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, warned during a meeting of the Security Cabinet that the IDF would “collapse from within”—so reports the Times of Israel. When a country’s Chief of Staff makes such a statement, it should be taken seriously. Of course, the Western press does not do this—after all, they don’t want to make enemies.

American Casualties

The official US casualty figures are kept at a homeopathic level. While it is tragic to lose a dozen or so soldiers, the heroes died for a good cause, and in numerical terms, the losses are negligible compared to those of the enemy—that is the US communication strategy.

The following clip shows one such individual case—the son of a fallen U.S. soldier is crying his heart out—no child deserves this, whether friend or foe.

The officially released figures are not credible. The Iranians are reporting 600 to 800 American deaths and 5,000 injuries. If you watch the videos of the attacks on the American bases, these figures seem more realistic than Mr. Trump’s fairy tales.

Iranian Attack on an American base in Saudi Arabia

Yesterday, Iran inflicted a severe blow on the Americans in Saudi Arabia. Three E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft, each costing around 600 million US dollars – of which there are only 16 in the world – and a further KC-135 tanker were destroyed.

Strait of Hormuz

Not Closed, but Controlled by Iran

The Strait of Hormuz is neither closed nor mined. The Iranians simply prohibit their enemies from passing through. This gives the Iranians enormous leverage to influence the global economy. I find it completely incomprehensible how the US and Israel could have gone to war against Iran without being fully aware of the epic scale of this consequence. At present, ships and cargoes belonging to the Iranians, Russians, Chinese, Pakistanis, Indians and Japanese – and, of course, the Spanish, whose Prime Minister is demonstrating that one can have backbone in Europe too – are permitted to pass through. This serves as a stark reminder to our government and media, which have been pursuing a course that promotes genocide and demonises Iran since October 2023. In addition to flying the correct flag, the raw materials must be purchased in yuan and a toll of 2 million US dollars must be paid.

Alongside Russia, Iran has an economic advantage given the current situation: before the war, Iran sold 1.1 million barrels of oil a day at $47; today, it sells 1.5 million barrels at $120; that is an increase of 300%.

I assume that the Strait of Hormuz will remain under Iranian control in the long term.

The US Dollar on its Way to the Deathbed

There are several reasons why commodities must be settled in yuan: firstly, dollar payments can be arbitrarily seized by the Americans, whereas this is not the case with the yuan, and on the Shanghai Gold Exchange, yuan can be easily exchanged for gold. Secondly, if 20% of the world’s energy is paid for in yuan rather than US dollars, this will significantly undermine the dominance of the US dollar.

“The petrodollar is dying in the very place where it was born.”

The irony of the story is that the wicked but brilliant Henry Kissinger created the Petrodollar in 1973 by persuading the Saudis to sell their oil only in US dollars – and now the Petrodollar is dying in the very place where it was born.

The Houthis will Crush the Saudis

So far, the Saudis have been using their East-West pipeline to avoid having to ship oil via the Strait of Hormuz, opting instead for the Bab al-Mandab Strait or the Suez Canal. However, this pipeline has only a fraction of the capacity of the Saudi port facilities in the Persian Gulf. The Bab al-Mandab Strait, however, is controlled by the Houthis, who are allied with Iran.

The Houthis have already announced a closure.

The haughty Americans should take this seriously, for the Houthis have been fought in vain for 15 years by the Americans, Saudis, Israelis, French and British. But since the West’s arrogance and stupidity are truly boundless, the West will be just as surprised as Trump was by Iran’s resistance when he said: “We won, but they are still hitting back.”.

This escalation will bankrupt the Saudis and block the Suez Canal. Given the current figures on the financial markets, the West is giving the impression that the ‘problem’ will soon be resolved. This is out of touch with reality, and market participants in the West are incapable of assessing the threat to the global economy in even remotely realistic terms.

Blocking the Bab al-Mandab Strait would have two consequences: firstly, the Saudis would no longer be able to export any oil at all; the same applies to the United Arab Emirates. Secondly, the Suez Canal flows into the Red Sea, which would then also be blocked. Twelve per cent of global trade passes through the Suez Canal. The Western media are not reporting on this – I am speechless.

In the Event of a US Ground Assault, Hormuz Will Become Gallipoli 2.0

One of the British Empire’s greatest setbacks was attributed, among other things, to Winston Churchill during the unsuccessful campaign to capture Gallipoli in 1915. The British, who were just as arrogant a good 100 years ago as the US is today, believed that this would herald the downfall of the Ottoman Empire. The battle claimed a total of 100,000 dead and 250,000 wounded on both sides, which amounted to almost half of the soldiers deployed.

As the topographical map of Iran below (left) shows, Iran is a natural fortress, giving the Iranians every advantage as defenders. Iraq, which is four times smaller than Iran, is, incidentally, completely flat (right). In 1991, a coalition of around 800,000 international troops managed to occupy barely half of this small, flat country. Only the border region with Iran is mountainous, which ultimately led to Iraq’s defeat in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

The Iranians struck against American troops as early as the weekend. The IRGC has confirmed that at least 50 US soldiers from Delta Force or CENTCOM were captured for the second time in the Strait of Hormuz using high-tech weapons. Furthermore, American troops were attacked in Dubai: two hideouts of the invading American army were located in Dubai, the first hideout containing more than 400 people and the second more than 100. Both hideouts were identified and completely destroyed. American casualties are certain and very high.

It is unclear whether the Americans will send troops on this suicide mission, and if so, how many. What is clear is that the commander of Marine Forces Reserve and Marine Forces South, Leonard F. Anderson, sent a noteworthy letter to his troops on 26 March. The letter was sent to 35,000 reservists. In it, Anderson writes that the Marines must prepare to go to war – families should be prepared.

The Gulf States

The Gulf states are no more sovereign than Germany. What they have in common is that they host huge American bases on their territory and thus have to – and presumably want to – sit on two horses, or rather ride two camels. This was already put in these terms on 5 March by Foreign Minister Lavrov. They are completely dependent on the US militarily. The loud-mouthed Saudis, whose military budget is ten times larger than Iran’s, failed – as already mentioned – to achieve anything against the Houthis; rather, they came away with a bloody nose.

Moreover, in his refreshingly crass manner, Trump publicly called MBD a ‘ass-kisser’ on Friday, which certainly did not go down well with the proud Arabs. The Arabs have left their brothers in Palestine out in the cold – or rather, in blood – for six decades and left the support to the Iranians, who are Persians and not Arabs. Thus, the Gulf states are known not for their loyalty, but for their opportunism. Having been pondering war against Iran just two days ago, the UAE has now abruptly changed course and is talking of a diplomatic solution. Upon taking stock of their troops, they surely realised that most of their soldiers are not even citizens of their own country.

All the Gulf states will align their flags with the winner – and that won’t be America.

Conclusion

As I speculated in my previous post, “The Empire Loses Control – Consequences”, Iran will not only win this conflict, but will also permanently reshape the entire map of the Middle East.

Israel, which now faces three adversaries, is on the brink of collapse. The invasion of Lebanon has not only turned out to be a complete fiasco, as it did in 2006, but it is foreseeable that Hezbollah’s formidable forces will likely advance into northern Israel. That in itself is already a disaster. As we have reported, cracks are already appearing in the Israeli army and collapse seems imminent; genocide and war are simply two entirely different fields of operation. In war, the enemy fires back – something Israeli soldiers are not accustomed to.

Now the Houthis are joining the fray, having been battle-hardened for ten years. Iranian missiles have a free pass into Israel – the Iron Dome defence system has been decimated by 80 per cent, and cities in Israel are now getting a taste of what cities like Beirut or Damascus – not to mention Gaza and Ramallah – have had to endure from Israel for decades. This naturally also has an impact on the morale of the Israelis, whose whining about their own suffering is getting on the nerves of more and more people – increasingly in the West too – because: who started the war, nota bene with the bombing of a girls’ school and hospitals?

It is to be feared that the Americans will launch a ground invasion of Iran. Before the attack on Iran, I would have bet a lot of money that the Americans would not commit such madness. I thought my dear friend Scott Ritter was exaggerating. He was right and I was wrong. Scott also foresees an attack this time – and then a bloodbath. His track record is better than mine, so I’d better keep quiet.«Verfolgt man die westlichen Medien, so glaubt man sich auf einem anderen Planeten.»

Until last Friday, the financial markets assumed that the whole affair would be resolved in a matter of weeks. A protracted conflict involving astronomical energy prices, famines and supply problems has not yet been factored into financial market prices. They have the Western media largely to thank for this. If you follow the media, you might think you were on another planet. The awakening in the West will herald a nightmare that will last for many years.

***

[Editor: The time to apply the 25th Amendment provision of the United States Constitution to remove President Donald Trump from office has clearly come.]

The Democratic governor building a playbook to resist ICE

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.vox.com/podcasts/479187/jb-pritzker-ice-illinois-2028-herndon

The Democratic governor building a playbook to resist ICE

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.vox.com/podcasts/479187/jb-pritzker-ice-illinois-2028-herndon

Republican rep floats Trump impeachment
Republican rep floats Trump impeachment
#Republican #Trumpimpeachment

https://opr.news/53bc0062260205en_us?link=1&client=ex_global

Download Now
https://opr.as/share

(From The Archives - 2/4/2024)

Credit @eleven_films

Remember America? We do. | 4 years ago today we launched Midnight in Washington which became the most viewed political video of the 2020 election cycle with over 30 million views and was a Webby Award Honoree.
.
.
.
.
#midnightinwashington #adamschiff #america #trumpimpeachment #inspirational #happybirthday

#uspol #TrumpImpeachment #AI

https://youtu.be/T2XMCnSsk4c?si=vMK0vynhnmSuSY3Y

#uspol #TrumpImpeachment #AI

https://youtu.be/T2XMCnSsk4c?si=vMK0vynhnmSuSY3Y

https://www.europesays.com/uk/710875/ Trump faces impeachment threat as US President accused of being ‘mentally unwell’ | World | News #25thAmendment #CongresswomanYassaminAnsari #Democrats #DonaldTrump #impeachment #MentalHealth #MentallyUnwell #News #trump #TrumpImpeachment #USA #World

@MindTGap yes nice speech ! #trumpimpeachment
#MADA
Make America Democratic Again

#TrumpImpeachment With Moses Mike Johnson only having a one seat majority now, don't you think it's time for all of the Democrats to get busy preparing impeachment papers?

An UNPRECEDENTED number of #SwingVoters want a THIRD #TrumpImpeachment: #Democrats had assumed that impeaching Trump for a third time was a dead issue, but a new poll of voters in swing districts found that voters favor impeaching Trump 49%-44%’ www.politicususa.com/p/unpreceden...

Unprecedented Number Of Swing ...

And what better way to get the #TrumpImpeachment ball rolling than to start with RFK Jr first?

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:x7ajfd6mhrii5axlx254vmol/post/3lzockzrbnk2e

Swing-district voters favor #TrumpImpeachment 49-44. Polling ended Sept 14--BEFORE Kimmel suspension, so probably understates support as of now. Lake Partners is polling firm. freespeechforpeople.org/poll-a-plura...

POLL: A Plurality of Swing-Dis...

Bondi calls for #TrumpImpeachment!

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:lvknxpm7ys2p44jtbtx2tz2b/post/3lyyiipyobz2w

Trump influence? US museum receives backlash for removing Potus’s impeachment display – Firstpost

The parent organisation of a top-visited history museum in the United States denied that political pressure played a…
#NewsBeep #News #Headlines #Americanhistory #impeachmentproceedings #Latvia #LV #museumexhibit #NationalMuseumofAmericanHistory #politicalpressure #SmithsonianInstitution #Trumpimpeachment #uspresidentdonaldtrump
https://www.newsbeep.com/36918/

Smithsonian removes references to Trump impeachments at history exhibit https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/01/smithsonian-trump-impeachments #Trumpimpeachment(2019) #Trumpimpeachment(2021) #WashingtonDC #DonaldTrump #USpolitics #USnews

So 128 Democrats voted to throw the Trump impeachment out. Remember when some of them voted to censure Al Green for demanding accountability?

https://indivisible.org/statements/cowardly-and-unacceptable-10-dems-join-republicans-censure-rep-al-green-and-hakeem

#dnc #dncisacriminaloperation #uspol #algreen #trumpimpeachment

Se Trump foi absolvido, foi porque no "tribunal" do Congresso, TODOS os deputados #GOP #MAGA votaram para inocentá-lo Esse julgamento foi uma FARSA! A razão do primeiro #impeachment foi #Trump: Somente Trump #TrumpImpeachment

Trump tried to extort Zelenskyy and was impeached – now he may succeed https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/28/trump-zelenskyy-ukraine-impeachment #Trumpimpeachment(2019) #VolodymyrZelenskyy #USforeignpolicy #DonaldTrump #Worldnews #Ukraine #USnews #Russia #Europe

Kalshi rolls out political betting contracts for Trump presidency - The prediction market has listed contracts for betting on events includi... - https://cointelegraph.com/news/kalshi-rolls-out-political-betting-contracts-trump-presidency #politicalpredictionmarkets #trumpimpeachment #electionbetting #uselections2024 #kamalaharris #donaldtrump #polymarket #robinhood #kalshi #circle #usdc

Convicted felon Donald Trump. That factual description written into history Thursday by a jury of 12 New Yorkers interrupts a streak of people with far more power and privilege enabling the disgraced 45th president to evade accountability for far more serious offenses.

This wasn’t the case I expected to see result in a guilty verdict first, or maybe ever. The conduct covered by those 34 felony charges brought by Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg–falsifying business records to commit or conceal other offenses, which in non-legalese means Trump hiding hush-money payments to suppress news coverage of some of the times he had sex with women besides his wife–seemed tawdry and even trivial compared to the other charges Trump faces. And the logic of Bragg’s charges was not easy to follow as the others.

Most stark among the other cases: The attempted murder of democracy that Trump staged after the 2020 election, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol.

Special prosecutor Jack Smith indicted Trump for that last August. But a feckless Supreme Court–on which two ethics-deprived members, Clarence Thomas (R) and Samuel Alito (R), show multiple signs of being at least insurrection-curious–has instead slow-walked its way through handling Trump’s absurd claim that former presidents warrant lifelong immunity from prosecution for acts during their time in office.

As a result, Smith’s case may not come to trial until after the election that could see Trump returned to the White House, from where he could fire Smith and order whatever lackey he appoints as his attorney general to drop the charges.

A separate case that could see Trump and his minions brought to justice for their attempted self-coup now sits in a ditch not because of the waffling of judges but because of a prosecutor’s foolishness. Fulton County, Ga., district attorney Fani Willis decided to hire the lawyer with whom she was having an affair to serve as her special prosecutor, and of course the defense found out.

The first case Smith brought against Trump–charging the former president with taking hundreds of classified documents to his Mar-a-Lago compound in Florida and then refusing to return them while being extremely careless in his custody of them–brings the added karmic richness of targeting the guy who campaigned on Hillary Clinton’s self-serving e-mail habits representing an unforgiveable threat to national security.

But Trump-appointed judge Aileen Cannon has been so solicitous of Trump’s interests and so slow in handing down rulings that she has all but assured that this case, too, won’t go to trial until after the election. In the process, Cannon’s contortions in favor of Trump may have single-handedly invented a new job description: emotional support judge.

All of these cases could have been rendered less eventful had 10 more Republican senators voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment in February 2021. A conviction would have banned Trump from holding “any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States”; instead, many of these cowards said that they punted because courts would hold Trump accountable.

After all that, 12 unnamed New Yorkers showed up and did their job over the past few weeks in Judge Juan Merchan’s court as Bragg’s lawyers effectively made their case. And they did so even though there is a real risk that the efforts of some of Trump’s more rabid supporters to dox the jurors will lead to one of his most deranged followers shooting one of these dutiful citizens–or a random person whom they think looks like one of them–on Fifth Avenue.

We owe these 12 men and women our thanks for showing that even former presidents are not above the law. But we cannot thank them by name.

https://robpegoraro.com/2024/05/31/former-area-resident-encounters-belated-accountability/

#2024Election #AileenCannon #AlvinBragg #ClarenceThomas #convictedFelon #Jan6 #JuanMerchan #ruleOfLaw #SamuelAlito #TrumpBusinessRecordsCase #TrumpDocumentsCase #TrumpFelonies #TrumpImpeachment #TrumpJan6Case

Not unless the president is impeached first, Trump’s lawyer told a judge at yesterday’s hearing about presidential immunity.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgwkj4/trump-lawyer-says-assassinating-rivals-might-not-be-a-prosecutable-crime?at_medium=Social%20media&at_campaign=Mastodon
#News #trumpimpeachment #presidentialimmunity #DonaldTrump #D.johnsauer #Assassination

Fact check: Trump falsely claims he ‘never’ faced an impeachment inquiry

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/28/politics/fact-check-trump-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

#CNN #FactCheck #TrumpImpeachment #ImpeachmentInquiry #FalseClaims #News #Politics #News

Democrat-turned-Republican who's now pushing for a Biden impeachment inquiry once opposed doing the same for Trump because it lacked 'bipartisan support' and would 'divide the country'

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-van-drew-democrat-republican-impeachment-inquiry-bipartisan-support-2023-8?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=topbar

#JeffVanDrew #ImpeachmentInquiry #BipartisanSupport #TrumpImpeachment #BidenImpeachment #DivideTheCountry #Politics #News

Inside the courtroom, it was clear this indictment is different for Donald Trump

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-truth-indictment-explained-impeached-b2387920.html

#DonaldTrumpIndictment #CourtroomIndictment #TrumpImpeachment #InsideTheCourtroom #DifferentIndictment #TrumpTruth #Politics #News

Chris Christie Skewers Republicans Defending Trump: ‘Blame Him, He Did It’

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/chris-christie-cnn-town-hall-republicans-defending-trump-1234769925/

#RollingStoneNews #ChrisChristieSpeaksOut #BlameHimHeDidIt #RepublicanCriticism #TrumpImpeachment #PoliticalAccountability #Politics #News

The Con Man will not be giving anyone in the #GOP their campaign contributions back.

#TrumpIndicted #trumpindictment #trumparraignment #trumpimpeachment

And now, let the flipping begin! More from the #nytimes

"On Tuesday, a federal appeals court in Washington turned down an emergency request from Mr. Trump’s legal team to stop the grand jury from hearing testimony from other top aides to Mr. Trump, including Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff, and Dan Scavino, Mr. Meadows’s deputy."

🙏 Article gifted

#TrumpImpeachment
#Politics

Reporter who broke Iran-Contra thinks a soft coup on Trump is on

Robert Parry believes the United States intelligence mechanism is attempting a soft coup, on Trump, that should concern us for other presidents.